[CCWG-ACCT] Proposal for a Community Veto Process on Key Board Decisions via Bylaws Amendment

[Alan Greenberg]

I tend to agree with much of what Avri said.

Board members are selected by SOs and At-Large  to represent them, 
but presumably because there is a belief that the prospective Board 
member shares a common set of values with the selecting organization. 
If the org comes to the beleif that they were mistaken, there is no 
doubt in my mind that they should be able to undo the selection. It 
will rarely if ever be used, but the possibility should ensure that 
Board members stay more in touch with the organization that selected 
them than is not sometimes the case. The removal needs to be 
unilateral and without a public rationale or opportunity for appeal.

Removal of one or more Board members by the overall community is a 
more difficult one. It should certainly require a strong consensus. 
Removal of all of the Board is frought with all sorts of problems not 
the least of which who acts as the interim Board until a new one is selected.

Alan


At 05/02/2015 03:33 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

>On 04-Feb-15 19:07, Roelof Meijer wrote:
>>Is the "the ability of the community to recall recalcitrant board 
>>members" also subject to the condition of the board not being 
>>unanimously or in super majority against such a recall? If it is, I 
>>think it will be useless.
>
>I would assume that removing a single board members would require 
>some process by those who (s)elected the Board member and could be 
>for any reason those (s)electors decided warranted such removal.
>
>It could, for example, be because the Board member never consulted 
>with those who (s)elected them.  It could be becasue they weren't 
>doing their job.  It could be because they were vile, vicious and 
>vindictive.  I think the commuity that (s)elects a Board member 
>should be able to remove them as they decide it is needed.  If their 
>idea of what is good for ICANN is radically diffferent from the 
>(s)electors then they should be removed.  We would need to develop 
>processes within each f the ACSO that (s)elect, and would need to 
>develop a nomcom removal process.
>
>As for removal of the chair or of the entire Board, that is a 
>different issue, and I am not sure that I support the removal of the 
>entire board, though removal of the chair by a community wide 
>consensus might make sense.
>
>avri
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150206/76bc43e1/attachment.html>